Haryana

Panchkula

CC/13/2023

JAI PARKASH ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANDHIR SINGH HOODA ADVOCATE - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	13 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	11.01.2023
Date of Decision	:	27.01.2023

                                                                           

 

Jai Parkash Arora, H.No.1246, Sector-4, Panchkula.

 

                                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

 

Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate, R/o H.No.1090-A, Sector-4, Panchkula

 

Office:- H.No.218-C, Royal Motia City, Chandigarh– Zirakpur Highway, Zirakpur(Punjab)

                                                                ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.          

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

 

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant had retired in the year 2009 from Government Department and that his increment was withdrawn retrospectively by the department in the year 2013. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached Sh. Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate(hereinafter referred as to OP) for filing Civil Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana, High Court. The OP demanded a fee of Rs.10,000/-, which was paid by the complainant in cash along with all necessary documents for preparing and filing the civil writ petition and accordingly, a CWP No.20033 of 2013 was filed in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana, High Court, which was allowed on 20.02.2017 in favour of the complainant. Since the due benefits were not released by the department, the complainant again contacted the OP, who suggested to file a COCP in the Hon’ble High Court. The OP demanded an additional fee of Rs.5,000/-, which was paid in cash by the complainant and accordingly, a COCP no.3321 of 2017 was filed, which was decided in the year 2018. It is stated that a notice of motion from the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana, High Court was received by the complainant in the month of February/ March 2020, wherein it was intimated that Haryana Government has filed LPA No.2453 of 2017 challenging the order dated 20.02.2017 passed in CWP No.20033 of 2013. The said LPA was fixed for hearing on 15.07.2020. In the said notice of motion, it was mentioned that in case of non appearance on behalf of the OP i.e. the complainant, the case would be heard ex-parte. The OP was again contacted in the month of June, 2020 to seek an advice qua defence of LPA. The OP suggested the complainant that the LPA should be defended by filing a reply. The OP demanded a fee of Rs.10,000/-, which was transferred in his account on 17.06.2020 through google pay account of the wife of the complainant. The copy of LPA along with other supported documents were handed over to the OP and some documents were also sent on his email address. The OP did not take any action qua preparing of the reply of the LPA but due to the covid-19 situation, the hearing in the LPA was deferred for next six months. In the month of February 2021, the complainant came to know that the LPA was fixed for hearing in the month of March 2021. The complainant met the OP  in his office  at Zirkapur on 20^th, 21th February 2021 requesting him to file the reply of the LPA but the OP ignored his request and did not inform the complainant about the status of the LPA, which was fixed for hearing on 23^rd September, 2022. Since the OP was not taking any interest and he was not serious about defending of the LPA, the complainant, being a senior citizen approached the Legal Service Authority  of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana, High Court and on his request, a counsel was provided to him vide letter dated 08.09.2022 to defend the LPA. The said counsel appointed by the Legal Service Authority appeared before the Hon’ble Bench in LPA on 23.09.2022. The OP was requested telephonically as well as through email on 24.11.2022 to refund his amount of Rs.10,000/- as paid by him as fee to defend the LPA. It is stated that the OP has failed to deliver the services to the complainant as he did not appear in the court and filed the reply in the said LPA, for which fee for Rs.10,000/- was paid to him. It is stated that the OP, instead of refunding the amount, has misbehaved with the complainant so as to usurp the amount of Rs.10,000/- given to him for a specific purpose. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             In support of his contentions, the complainant while filing the complaint has annexed some documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 with the complaint. In addition to above, the complainant has also placed on record the copy of decision dated 20.02.2017 and decision dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.20033 of 2013 and COCP No.3321 of 2017 respectively, which are  assigned the specific number as Annexure C-10 & C-11.

3.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the record carefully and minutely.

4.             During arguments, the complainant, while reiterating the averments made in the complaint, has alleged negligence, lapses and deficiencies on the part of his counsel, namely, Sh.Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate, who has been impleaded as OP in the present case, on the ground that the said Advocate misguided him qua filing of the reply on behalf of the complainant in the LPA No.2453 of 2017 and that the said advocate did not appear in the said LPA. The complainant vehemently contended that the OP was deficient while rendering services to him causing mental stress, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant and thus, admission of the complaint has been prayed by issuing notice to the OP. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment dated 08.11.2021 delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.24842 of 2021 titled as Nandlal Lohariya Vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit and others.

5.            A complaint before it is admitted for adjudication is required to qualify, inter alia, various parameters, which may be enumerated as below;

1. That the complainant falls under the category of a consumer and that there exist a consumer dispute.
2. That the complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation as required under Section 69 (1) of CP Act, 2019.
3. That the relief claimed do not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
4. That this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

6.             In addition to above, it is also necessary to look into the fact whether the controversy involved in the present complaint can be adjudicated by the Commission by adopting the summary procedure as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act.

                  There is no issue qua the parameters mentioned above at serial no. a to d. However, the adjudication of the issues raised in the complaint in a summary procedure being adopted by the Commission as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act does not seem to be feasible.  

7.             Adverting to the facts of the present case,  it is found that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was transferred by the complainant through google pay account of his wife, namely, Usha Arora, in favour of the OP vide UPI transaction ID No.016919369462. As per admitted factual position, Shri Randhir Singh Hooda i.e. OP was engaged by the complainant for filing a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court, which was filed by him i.e. CWP No.20033 of 2013 and the same was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in favour of the complainant on 20.02.2017. Further, the COCP no.3321 of 2017 was also filed in the Hon’ble High Court through said Advocate(OP). An email dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure C-9) was received by the complainant from OP, wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs.55,000/- and Rs.22,000/- was settled as counsel fee qua the filing and pursuing of the said CWP no.20033 of 2013 and COCP no.3321 of 2017. As per said email, the OP has stated that only a sum of Rs.5,000/-was paid to him out of settled fee amounting to Rs.55,000/-. As per said email, it is further stated that a sum of Rs.62,000/- is still payable by the complainant.

8.             During arguments, the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and stated that a fee of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was settled between him and the OP qua the filing and pursuing of said CWP No.20033 of 2013 and COCP No.3321 of 2017 and the said fee amounting to Rs.15,000/-(Rs.10000+5000) was paid by him to Shri Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate(OP) and thus, nothing was due towards him(complainant).

9.             After hearing the complainant and perusing the entire record available on file, it is found that the dispute between the parties is qua the amount of fee, settled between them, for the filing and pursuing of the said CWP No.20033 of 2013 and COCP No.3321 of 2017. Pertinently, no documentary evidence has been submitted by the complainant qua the fee settled between them as also the payment made by him amounting to Rs.15,000/-(Rs.10000+5000). With regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/- made by the complainant on 17.06.2020 in favour of the OP, the OP has claimed that the same was made to him in respect of the balance payment, which was due towards the complainant in respect of his counsel fee as settled in the matter of  CWP No.20033 of 2013 and COCP No.3321 of 2017. As per the said email dated 25.11.2022(Annexure C-9), the OP has made counter claim stating  that a sum of Rs.62,000/- as balance fee is still payable by the complainant to him. In the absence of any documentary evidence qua the amount of fee settled for the filing and pursuing of CWP No.20033 of 2013 and COCP no.3321 of 2017, the dispute between the parties cannot be adjudicated by adopting a summary procedure. For the adjudication of the present dispute, an elaborate evidence involving examination and cross examination of the witnesses is required, which is not permissible in summary procedure being adopted for the adjudication of the consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the controversy involved in the present complaint is not feasible to be decided in the summary procedure being adopted by the Commission.

10.            In view of the facts stated above, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint in limine. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant the liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the appropriate Tribunal/Authority/Court as per law if he is so advised. The complainant shall be at liberty to file an application before the concerned Court/Authority/Tribunal under Section 14 of the limitation Act for excluding the period spent before this Commission for the purposes of computation of limitation in terms and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995(III) SCC P.583”. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the complainant and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 27.01.2023

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

              Member                       Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

 

                                       (Satpal)

                                           President

 

C.C. No.13 of 2023

 

 

Present:             Complainant in person.    

                         

Heard. Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in limine with liberty to the complainant to approach the competent authority/court, if he is so advised.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Date:27.01.2023 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                  Member                 Member                       President